Comparison of the diagnostic sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein and glycoprotein-based antibody tests

Schnurra, Carolin; Reiners, Nina; Biemann, Ronald; Kaiser, Thorsten; Trawinski, Henning; Jassoy, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104544

Cited by 78 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With respect to the previous positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result considered as the reference of first choice, following a recent suggestion [ 19 ], assay sensitivities were found to be relatively high and varied from 80.8% to 96.2% ( Table 1 ). This finding is in accordance to other studies [ 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 ] and to a meta-analysis [ 23 ]. Six (23.1%; five, 19.2%, if the positive retesting result of the initial serum from patient 4 is taken into account; for details, see below) of the 26 SARS-CoV-2-infected patients did not develop SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies, as demonstrated by a PRNT ≤1:10.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Furthermore, studies on the sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 IgG tests, including ELISAs from the Epitope, Euroimmun, and Mikrogen companies, were published previously [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 ]. A recent prospective study examined the sensitivity of seven antibody tests from Abbott, Euroimmun, Mediagnost, Novatec, Virotech, Roche, and Siemens companies but did not provide data on their specificities or on the correlation of the assay results to the presence of SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies [ 25 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kinetics of Nucleo- and Spike Protein-Specific Immunoglobulin G and of Virus-Neutralizing Antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Strömer

Rose

Grobe³

et al. 2020

Microorganisms

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kinetics of neutralizing antibodies and immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the nucleo (N) or spike (S) proteins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type2 (SARS-CoV-2) were studied in patients up to 165 days after PCR diagnosis of infection. Two immunoassays were selected out of eight IgG or total antibody tests by comparing their specificities and sensitivities. Sensitivities were calculated with convalescent sera from 26 PCR-confirmed cases, of which 76.9% had neutralizing antibodies (>1:10). Stored sera collected during the summer 2018 (N = 50) and winter seasons 2018/2019 (N = 50) were included to demonstrate the test specificities. IgG kinetics, avidities, and virus-neutralizing capacities were recorded over up to 165 days in eleven patients and five individuals from routine diagnostics. Sensitivities, specificities, and diagnostic accuracies ranged between 80.8–96.3%, 96.0–100%, and 93.7–99.2%, respectively. Nearly all results were confirmed with two different SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoblots. Six (54.4%) patients exhibited stable N-specific IgG indices over 120 days and longer; three of them developed IgG of high avidity. The S-specific IgG response was stable in ten (91.0%) patients, and eight (72.7%) had neutralizing antibodies. However, the titers were relatively low, suggesting that sustained humoral immunity is uncertain, especially after outpatient SARS-CoV-2 infection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinetics of Nucleo- and Spike Protein-Specific Immunoglobulin G and of Virus-Neutralizing Antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Strömer

Rose

Grobe³

et al. 2020

Microorganisms

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the companies producing immunodiagnostic assays have rapidly produced tests detecting SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG, IgM, IgA or total antibodies. Some of these assays have been evaluated by independent groups [ [1] , [2] , [3] ] but their comparison on the same samples has rarely been performed [ [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] ] or only for a small number of commercial assays, with the exception of point-of-care systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of eight commercial, high-throughput, automated or ELISA assays detecting SARS-CoV-2 IgG or total antibody

Trabaud

Icard

Milon

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For serological tests, manufacturers have often demonstrated very good performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity [ 4 , 5 ]. However, for antibody testing in acute disease, the sensitivity is highly dependent on the kinetics of antibody development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of different serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 in real life

Brochot

Demey

Handala

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The emergence of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic required the rapid and large-scale deployment of PCR and serological tests in different formats. Objectives Real-life evaluation of these tests is needed. Using 168 samples from patients hospitalized for COVID-19, non-hospitalized patients but infected with SARS-CoV-2, patients participating in screening campaigns, and samples from patients with a history of other seasonal coronavirus infections, we evaluated the clinical performance of 5 serological assays widely used worldwide (WANTAI®, BIORAD®, EUROIMMUN®, ABBOTT® and LIAISON®). Results For hospitalized patients, all these assays showed a sensitivity of 100 % from day 9 after the symptoms onset. On the other hand, sensitivity was much lower for patients who did not require hospitalization for COVID-19 confirmed by PCR (from 91.6 % for WANTAI® to 69 % for LIAISON®). These differences do not seem to be due to the antigens chosen by the manufacturers but more to the test formats (IgG detection versus total antibodies). In addition, more than 50 days after a positive PCR for CoV-2-SARS the proportion of positive patients seem to decrease. We did not observe any significant cross-reactions for these techniques with the four other seasonal coronaviruses. Conclusion In conclusion, the evaluation and knowledge of the serological tests used is important and should require an optimized strategy adaptation of the analysis laboratories to best meet patient’s expectations in the face of this health crisis.

show abstract

Comparison of the diagnostic sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein and glycoprotein-based antibody tests

Cited by 78 publications

References 9 publications

Kinetics of Nucleo- and Spike Protein-Specific Immunoglobulin G and of Virus-Neutralizing Antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Kinetics of Nucleo- and Spike Protein-Specific Immunoglobulin G and of Virus-Neutralizing Antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Comparison of eight commercial, high-throughput, automated or ELISA assays detecting SARS-CoV-2 IgG or total antibody

Comparison of different serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 in real life

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About